Albertans may have overwhelmingly voted to remain in Canada, but the nine other questions on the province’s MAGA referendum reveal extensive fine print.
Elections Alberta reports some 16 million votes cast out of just under 3 million eligible voters, counting each response to one of the questions on the ballot as a separate vote and muddying the question of turnout.
The provincial election body was not prepared for the degree of interest in the referendum from Indigenous populations and, in some communities, ran out of ballots before voting was complete. That is something that should never occur in any election, much less overwhelmingly impacting a single demographic.
In reading the current numbers, the total ‘remain’ votes exceed the total ballots cast in several other questions. Each question had a lower response rate than the previous one. Of the nine leading questions posed, only one was defeated — and not by much. The ninth question had one-third fewer responses than the first. Not because the questions were any less important, but presumably because voters just stopped voting in increasingly large numbers the further down the ballot they got. It is not by accident, then, that separation was the tenth question on the ballot. The premier of Alberta clearly wanted the down-ballot trend to hold through to the end.
More of a concern in reading and interpreting the deeper results, more people voted ‘yes’ on every other question than voted ‘referendum’ on the most critical one. In other words, significant numbers of Albertans voted to remain in Canada — but with an asterisk. More than twice as many votes were cast to limit immigration than to hold a referendum for separation, meaning a significant portion of remain voters also voted for many of the far right policies on offer.
Voters only voted down a single measure besides the referendum on independence. That one, question #8, was the one that talked about amending the Canadian constitution to escape federal standards on universal health care, although even that was neutralised by support for several other questions calling on decentralisation of federal powers.
These points, directly quoted from the referendum questions, were all supported. I broke down each to its core dogwhistle last month.
Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities
Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services
Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs
Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the health care and education systems
Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election
Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts
Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate
Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province’s laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province’s laws and federal laws conflict
None of these questions were asked idly or by accident.
Danielle Smith and her United Conservative Party government had an agenda and a purpose to each. They expected to lose the question on whether or not to hold a referendum on separation. If they were confident, they would have made separation a direct question this time around, not simply a request for a mandate to ask later.
They set up the rest of the referendum to give them a mandate to undermine Canadian federalism and sovereignty anyway, pretending to build on the unity mandate while still working to offer a weakened Canada up to their American masters. Each question picks away at a different aspect of Canadian cohesion, intended to eventually show that Canada is not conforming to Albertans’ expressed desires, with a long game of building resentment to increase separatist support in the future.
One cannot forget that it was this same government that brought in the Alberta Sovereignty Act, whose official government website still today states its purpose as “The act allows Alberta to fight harmful federal laws and defend the constitutional federal-provincial division of powers.”
It is wonderful that Albertans, collectively and overwhelmingly, understood the risks of separating from Canada in the face of a significant American threat on the headline question, for now. That does not, however, end the misinformation and dogwhistles underlying the attempt. Nor does it end either the Alberta government’s efforts to fatally wound Canada in undermining our core values and institutions or the UCP’s efforts toward eventual separation. Whether they fully appreciate the risks posed by the UCP government itself, we will find out next year.
Albertans may have voted for Canada on Monday, but they did so with an asterisk. If we truly want to end this, we had best read and understand the fine print — without falling for its underlying premise.
I knew this would happen. I have no desire to have a triple-E senate that is dependant on donors to get elected. If Alberta and other provinces feel it needs to change from what it is, then abolition of the senate is the way to go. And I suppose that Dani Smith has not realized that she would never get a pipeline to tidewater if provinces could over-ride federal laws.
Alberta Act 1905 should have been understood as having long-term harmful impacts to the cohesion of the Canadian project.
Outside of treaty 8 separating from provincial crowns, I don't see any solution.
(I say treaty 8 given treaty 6 and 7 are majority settler, and don't feel the same level of impacts from the distant and disconnected capital in Edmonton).